|
|
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
|
|
IN WHICH I DEFEND JOHN KERRY AS A MEANS OF FURTHER ATTACKING THE CATHLOLIC CHURCH
I've written at great length about being raised Catholic. I've also noted my reasons for abandoning the faith. I feel that the Church is overbearing and reaches into areas of government in foreign countries where it has no business. You and I have every right to meddle in the politics of our respective countries, after all, we pay the admittance fee: income taxes. The Catholic Church pays no taxes whatsoever, yet still insists on inserting itself on the great issues of the day, often using its fantastic resources as an instrument of its lobbying. The Church has wealth that makes Microsoft look like a homeless shelter.
My attitude is a simple one. If the Church wants to exercise the same right to engage the political system that I have, then they should bear the same responsibilities. Tax the fuckers. Tax them hard.
There is one thing that annoys me more than the Church itself, though. Nothing, I mean nothing, makes me crazier than Catholics who never relent in declaring their Catholicism while protesting that the issue is "wrong" on certain issues. These issues include, but are not limited to, gay marriage, female ordination, the celibacy of priests, the death penalty and abortion. These "adherents" overlook one simple fact. The Church is not a democracy. In fact, if you believe your religious beliefs to be the "word of God," it couldn't be less democratic. You want to talk about Dead White Men dominating our culture? Religion invented that. What these morons fail to realize is that the Church isn't misguided, THEY are! If you look deeper into what these "Catholics" are actually saying, it looks like this; "Yes, I firmly believe that Church doctrine is the word of God, and as a good Catholic, I recognize papal infallibility. But the Church is wrong on this issue.
One cannot objectively look at the positions of these people and not conclude that they are anything but hypocrites and arrogant motherfuckers to boot.
As I've mentioned before, it is my honest belief that the Catholic Church is a criminal organization that has been, at varying points in its history, guilty of genocide and a continuing conspiracy to molest children. In the political realm, the Church's "issue advocacy" comes dangerously close to the line on campaign finance laws and the laws pertaining to its tax exemptions. The above are as true in Canada as it is in the United States and I can't imagine that the situation is much different in most other countries.
Accordingly, when the Church attacks a politician, even a politician I detest - and I loathe every Democratic nominee for president in my lifetime - I side with the politician. Only the Catholic Church could compel me to rise to the defense of Senator John Kerry. In the current issue of Time (cover date, April 5 2004), there is an article, anonymously sourced, that details Rome's problems with Kerry. The first paragraph reads as follows;
"The last time a major political party put forward a Roman Catholic candidate for President, he had to confront bigotry and suspicion that he would be taking orders from Rome. Forty-four years later, the Democrats are poised to nominate another Catholic -another Senator from Massachusetts whose initials happen to be J.F.K.- and this time, the controversy over his religion may develop within the Catholic Church itself. Kerry's positions on some hot-button issues aren't sitting well with members of the church elite. Just listen to a Vatican official, who is an American: 'People in Rome are becoming more and more aware that there's a problem with John Kerry, and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of his stances, particularly abortion.'"
Anti-papism has a long and storied history in American politics. An entire political party, the Know Nothings in the 1850's was founded on the concept. Kerry is only the third Catholic nominated by a major political party in U.S history. Governor Al Smith of New York was nominated by the Democrats in 1928 and was annihilateded by Herbert Hoover. Kennedy was nominated in 1960 and very likely stole the election through vote fraud in Texas and Cook County, Illinois. Patrick J. Buchanan was the Reform Party nominee in 2000, but the Peroistas don't count as a major party and Buchanan only won 1% of the vote...Although he did surprisingly well with elderly Jews in Palm Beach County, Florida.
When asked about the Vatican's explicit criticism of his record, Kerry told Time ""I don't think it complicates things at all. We have a separation of church and state in this country. As John Kennedy said very clearly, I will be a President who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic President."
Unsurprisingly, Kerry isn't exactly telling the complete truth. Kennedy actually used antCatholicismsm to his benefit. In the critical 1960 West Virginia primary, Kennedy noted that no fair Protestant would vote against Kennedy as a Catholic. This, of course, implied that if they did that they were bigots. Oh, and the famously Catholic Mafia using its influence to strong-arm the coal miner's union to turn out for Kennedy didn't hurt either. Also in West Virginia, Kennedy stated that, as president, "If you took orders from the Pope, you would be breaking your oath of office and commit a sin against God. You would be subject to impeachment and should be impeached." In a later speech in Texas before a Protestant ministers association, Kennedy said that if there was ever a clear conflict between his religion and his office, he would resign the presidency. Given what we now know about JFK, the "violating oaths" and "sins against God" parts were particularly sweet. Kennedy was an expert on both.
The Catholic Church has always been a thorn in the side of Catholic office holders, but as Time points out, now they're going for the throat.
"If anything, the church is getting tougher. The Vatican issued last year a "doctrinal note" warning Catholic lawmakers that they have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them." When Kerry campaigned in Missouri in February, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke publicly warned him "not to present himself for Communion" - an ostracism that Canon Law 915 reserves for "those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin." Kerry was scheduled to be in St. Louis last Sunday, and told TIME, "I certainly intend to take Communion and continue to go to Mass as a Catholic." '
If this isn't a clear case of a tax-exempt group lobbying a political candidate, nothing is. I would actually argue that it is blackmail. In either case, the Church allowing its officials to go on the record against Kerry is a de-facto, in-kind contribution to President Bush and the Church should lose their tax exemption for it. For an Archbishop to threaten Kerry with denying him the sacrament of Communion presented the Senator an opportunity he was too stupid to exploit.
If Kerry were smart, he would've shown up with a camera crew and demanded he be denied Communion. The resulting pictures would have been worth millions in advertising hindependencence of mind.
Anyhow, this is a very interesting area to explore. Particularly if Kerry gets extremely lucky and actually wins in November.
|
|
|
| |
